Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I give heartfelt thanks to Mr. O'Sullivan, who is of such sterling service and expertise, for his generosity of time and expertise. I disagree with some of the thoughts Mr. O'Sullivan has articulated so well in his paper. I would love to hear his response. Does he accept that allowing a foreign corporation to sue a sovereign state in a dispute heard outside the state's legal system can be challenging at the best of times, albeit not insurmountable?

Mr. O'Sullivan has stated in his paper the main motivation for the arbitration, and I accept it replaces ad hocarbitration, is to prevent the risk of a hometown decision from a rogue state.

The main motivation, and it is in Mr. O'Sullivan's paper, is to prevent the risk of, for want of a better word, a home town decision from a rogue state and how damaging that would be. There are countries in such dire straits where I accept that could happen. Why have one size that fits all? To some, it looks like an insult to a tried and tested judicial system which is beyond reproach, beyond fear or failure, and which has come through testing times in this jurisdiction and has always risen impeccably. One might not like the decision but why must Ireland go into a one-size-fits-all approach when it is absolutely unnecessary because of the proven track record of the Judiciary in this country? It is something we should all be proud of. We will not go into the law and whether the Constitution can do it, but is Mr. O'Sullivan aware of the concerns of the association of European judges? Is he aware of the concerns of the association of German judges?

Is it not enshrined in the improved arbitration, which is no longer ad hoc, that it is still binding, although there is an appellate jurisdiction, and that it is still, in a form, confidential? Please correct me if not. They are two fundamental principles of arbitration. How does Ireland get its say if, for example, there was on the face of it an error in an arbitration, which occasionally happens? Will Mr. O'Sullivan take on board that countries with good systems of utter judicial independence find this as an outrageous overreach if not an insult to the system which is so impartial?

Mr. O'Sullivan said it was difficult but not impossible to change. Nothing is impossible and we could change that although it would be exceptionally challenging. Will Mr. O'Sullivan elaborate on how to go about changing that one aspect of it? Are we talking about months or years? What exactly must happen in terms of diplomacy and negotiations? I fully accept our Canadian trade is important and Mr. O'Sullivan has outlined that, but they are the angles I ask him kindly to respond to. I appreciate his time this evening.